You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The podcast may go up at the APS site eventually but it's not there yet.

The crucial question is what is the date of their youngest group of Balkan samples? It's one thing if there is no steppe there 4200-3000 BC or so, and this thus calls into question the movement of Anatolian languages from the steppe into Anatolia via the Balkans. I've maintained since the days of dna forums that there's no clear archaeological trail moving in that direction at that time; rather the reverse.

It's another thing if there's no steppe up to the time of the Mycenaeans. How then and with whom did the Greek language arrive? How did related Armenian get to eastern Anatolia?

As for India, he's not saying there's no steppe ancestry, just that it doesn't look like Andronovo or Sintashta were the vectors. For all we know they may have found a more proximate population

The crucial question is what is the date of their youngest group of Balkan samples? It's one thing if there is no steppe there 4200-3000 BC or so, and this thus calls into question the movement of Anatolian languages from the steppe into Anatolia via the Balkans. I've maintained since the days of dna forums that there's no clear archaeological trail moving in that direction at that time; rather the reverse.

I think that this is just a problem of sample bias. There were lots of people living in the Balkans from 4200 to 3000 BCE. How many did they test? Ten? One hundred? Was it from different locations and different periods? If they tested over one hundred from at least 10 different locations and periods, including cultures that archaeologists thought had Steppe influence like Cernavodă, Ezero, Glina or Bubanj-Hum, then it would be rather surprising. But if they took samples from cultures still belonging to Old Europe like Boian or Karanovo, then there is nothing odd about it. Even in the former case, there was surely a strong segregation between the Steppe invaders and the indigenous population, so not finding any Steppe ancestry could just mean that they got samples belonging to unmixed indigenous people in the conquered population.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

I see Srubna as related to R1a-Sintashta, but catacomb as R1b-Yamna
So did Myceneans come from Srubna or Catacomb?
They certainly came from the people of western Ukraine who invented the sword. Those same people also got into the Carpathian Basin, even before the Myceneans in Greece.

It could have been either the Late Catacomb or the Early Srubna culture. It's not very clear the the Mycenaeans appear just after the transition period between the two cultures in the Steppe.

The crucial question is what is the date of their youngest group of Balkan samples? It's one thing if there is no steppe there 4200-3000 BC or so, and this thus calls into question the movement of Anatolian languages from the steppe into Anatolia via the Balkans. I've maintained since the days of dna forums that there's no clear archaeological trail moving in that direction at that time; rather the reverse.

AFAIK there is no trail at all, not from the Balkans, neither from anywhere else

anyway archeological trails are always guesswork
if it is possible to get hold of the proper DNA the trail becomes much clearer and much more certain

Greeks being as a R1a nation? Hmm.. Read the Cypriot y dna paper. There is 0 correlation with R1a and Greek language spread into Cyprus. Most R1a present today in Greece is from medieval Slavic settlers.

For the R1b in Armenia coming from Balkanes. There is no archaeological evidence and no genetic evidence. You simply don't want to accept that Anthony's theory was wrong about that.

And btw it was wrong also about Hittites. Reich is not a person that will make bold claims without serious evidence.
Chernavoda was caused by Anatolia Chl entering into Europe and not by Steppe incursion. Before Myceneans there was no enough Steppe in South Balkans. Look at Montenegro BA on PCA You will see that Reich is correct. I will attach it.

Language shift is not always caused by "massive" migration of people(DNA).In my opinion the said group sometimes can be near unnoticable.Let's look at the Altaic family,I don't know what will be the difference with Indo European supermen fighting on horseback, while the Altaics were far superior in this,or the Arabic speaking people of north Africa.In more modern times in Europe I can think of Italians and Romanians speaking Romance and their similarity.Cyprus is yet small island it could have been "Hellenized" in many different ways.

You need to read that Cyprus paper. Cyprus was Hellenized by E-V13, R1b, and J2-M67. No R1a and I2a1 which both are recent Slavic settlers in Greece during Byzantine epoch.

I'm really not arguing which haplogroups are originally Greek if we can speak of that in the first place,was giving an examples of language shift nor is there any indications that R1a and I2a arrived with Slavic settlers to be honest(not enough data) but mere interpretation of historical data by amateurs.Trying to fit all that with genetics which not always work so well,always coming something new to surprise us.

Concerning that tree which as far as I understand is based on Chang et al computational model. Which can create exotic branchings.
Any tree that place the split between Indo Aryan and Iranian after 2000 BC is wrong wrong wrong.
You can have dozens of ancient dna from Sintashta and Andronovo You will not find the Indian L657.

Because it was not there and it made a leap frog directly from maybe Abashevo to Indus Valley.

Concerning that tree which as far as I understand is based on Chang et al computational model. Which can create exotic branchings.
Any tree that place the split between Indo Aryan and Iranian after 2000 BC is wrong wrong wrong.
You can have dozens of ancient dna from Sintashta and Andronovo You will not find the Indian L657.

Because it was not there and it made a leap frog directly from maybe Abashevo to Indus Valley.

Albanian being a Germanic language is also very funny.

Indo Iranians split is still later than Tocharian because there in the east we have a Centum dialect,Satemization must have occurred at later level because Tocharian would have been affected too by this innovation which affects Indo-Iranian,Balto-Slavic,Armenian,Albanian,Thracian,Dacian etc,partly Greek.

Greeks being as a R1a nation? Hmm.. Read the Cypriot y dna paper. There is 0 correlation with R1a and Greek language spread into Cyprus. Most R1a present today in Greece is from medieval Slavic settlers.

That only applies to Mycenaeans, and I didn't say that a lot of Mycenaean Y-DNA lineages survived. Indo-European lineages were either R1a or R1b, but if you remove Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Roman R1a and R1b in Greece, there is not much left. Mostly R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z93, but that's just a few percents of the population. If the Dorians were R1b -Z2103 from the Balkans, then all that is left for the Mycenaeans is R1a. However R1a-Z93 probably came from the Near East. So chances are that the Mycenaeans had quite Proto-Slavic looking lineages like R1a-Z282 (either Z280 or M458) that cannot easily be distinguished from those of later Slavic invasions. That would explain why there is R1a all over Greece even though the Slavs only really settled in the north. Those two separate sources of similar-looking R1a would also explain why R1a is considerably higher in the north, but present throughout Greece. It is also in agreement with the new tree proposed by David Reich, which places Greek in the R1a branch alongside the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches.

Indo-European lineages were either R1a or R1b, but if you remove Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Roman R1a and R1b in Greece, there is not much left. Mostly R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z93, but that's just a few percents of the population. If the Dorians were R1b -Z2103 from the Balkans, then all that is left for the Mycenaeans is R1a. However R1a-Z93 probably came from the Near East.

there may have been a 3rd IE clade, apart from R1a and R1b, certain sublades of I2a2a
not for Myceneans, but for the expansion toward the Carpathian Basin from the steppe

Concerning that tree which as far as I understand is based on Chang et al computational model. Which can create exotic branchings.
Any tree that place the split between Indo Aryan and Iranian after 2000 BC is wrong wrong wrong.
You can have dozens of ancient dna from Sintashta and Andronovo You will not find the Indian L657.

Because it was not there and it made a leap frog directly from maybe Abashevo to Indus Valley.

Albanian being a Germanic language is also very funny.

I am surprised with the new classification of Albanian as Germanic language, but its not really funny. Albanian original words, not the borrowed one, contain a number of German words (but not too many) that can not be explained with Gothic or Vandal invasions. Also 2 Austrian linguists published a work saying that Albanian is the base of all European languages including Germanic, and Albanian language is not related to Illyrian. Albanians were annoyed to their suggestion of Albanian not related to Illyrian since there is evidence of relation and ignored their findings. To make my point, even if Albanian is not Germanic signs of some kind of relation are there. But the question is who brought that language to Albanians since genetically Albanians are Balkanic and R1b Germanic is not common among Albanians.

You need to read that Cyprus paper. Cyprus was Hellenized by E-V13, R1b, and J2-M67. No R1a and I2a1 which both are recent Slavic settlers in Greece during Byzantine epoch.

yes you are right about that, but a simple explanation could be that when cyprus was hellenized the myceneans were already settled in greece for centuries so even if the original myceneans were predominately R1a the invading armies of cyprus had all greek haplotypes in the normal percentages.Then if you consider the fact that this army was mingled with the locals then ydna differences are to be aspected anyway.

I think that this is just a problem of sample bias. There were lots of people living in the Balkans from 4200 to 3000 BCE. How many did they test? Ten? One hundred? Was it from different locations and different periods? If they tested over one hundred from at least 10 different locations and periods, including cultures that archaeologists thought had Steppe influence like Cernavodă, Ezero, Glina or Bubanj-Hum, then it would be rather surprising. But if they took samples from cultures still belonging to Old Europe like Boian or Karanovo, then there is nothing odd about it. Even in the former case, there was surely a strong segregation between the Steppe invaders and the indigenous population, so not finding any Steppe ancestry could just mean that they got samples belonging to unmixed indigenous people in the conquered population.

I am surprised with the new classification of Albanian as Germanic language, but its not really funny. Albanian original words, not the borrowed one, contain a number of German words (but not too many) that can not be explained with Gothic or Vandal invasions. Also 2 Austrian linguists published a work saying that Albanian is the base of all European languages including Germanic, and Albanian language is not related to Illyrian. Albanians were annoyed to their suggestion of Albanian not related to Illyrian since there is evidence of relation and ignored their findings. To make my point, even if Albanian is not Germanic signs of some kind of relation are there. But the question is who brought that language to Albanians since genetically Albanians are Balkanic and R1b Germanic is not common among Albanians.

Personally I believe that Myceneans cause they are connected with Vucocar since we found many common with should be R1b
and Hellenes-Dorians should be R1a since Makedonians were Dorians but also consider as cousins the Bryges a Thracian nation, the Mygdones

Cyprus was first colonised by Myceneans and Achaioi,
much later only 2 areas colonised by Makedonians at Ammochostos/famagusta and North at Solotoi if remember correct,

but linguistic Cyprus belongs to Arcado-Cypriot Dialect,
which means is Connected with minor-Asian population the known at Hettite as Arzawa-Asuwa the ones in Centum Greek called Arcadia

This is refreshing - it's great to see that David Reich is so willing to adjust his hypotheses to accomodate new evidence. I'd think much of Gramkelidze's & Ivanov's work has been vindicated by recent DNA, though there's still quite some inertia when it comes to more popular theories. Anecdotally, what converted me from being Gimbutas' most loyal acolyte was G&I demonstration that early attested Indo-European societies fit quite perfectly in the pan-West-Asian cultural horizon. That always seemed like a stronger argument to me than the Y-DNA monomania and such and made me doubt their intrusive nature. This is in no contradiction to an intermediate steppe episode, which G&I discuss in several chapters.

Incidentally they also attempt to demonstrate the West Asian centrality of Greek culture. They even hint at the possibility that the extant Greeks might have been but an offshoot of a larger population inhabiting Anatolia and the Transcaucasus, which was displaced in its original homeland. If there was no early steppe incursion into the Balkans that suggestion might not be so outrageous after all.